Page 2 of 2
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:59 am
by KungPao
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
* Noisemakers & decoys as "real" objects. Currently decoys & noisemakers (and tactical mobile decoys like MOSS, Korund etc.) are handled abstractly in the point-defence step just like all soft-kill countermeasures, so they do not instantiate as distinct entities. In RL both decoys and noisemakers can stay present for a significant time, both confusing ASW weapons but also contributing to ambient noise increase and direct masking. It is therefore desirable to implement such countermeasures as distinct entities fired just like weapons.
That would be great! Right now the decoys are almost useless. The decoys sucess check is happenning at the time of impact , so it doesn't give torpedo too much penalty if the torp is spoofed. Even an un-wired Torp will re-aquire the Submarine immediately, initate the re-attack one min latter (if Sub is running at flank).
If this feature is too hard to implement, please consider add some calculated penalty for current Torp re-attack mode. For example, in case a torp is spoofed by decoy, make it 75% chance it will dispear.
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:53 pm
by serjames
Second the "in the layer" setting... I tend to use this all the time
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:59 pm
by thewood1
"make it 75% chance it will dispear"
Why 75%? Is there source on that? Are decoys that effective? Does it change based on timeline?
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:03 pm
by Dimitris
ORIGINAL: KungPao
If this feature is too hard to implement, please consider add some calculated penalty for current Torp re-attack mode. For example, in case a torp is spoofed by decoy, make it 75% chance it will dispear.
I _think_ we already have a certain "torpedo lured by countermeasures and point-failing" probability, but I'll check.
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:27 am
by AKar
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
* Do not use sonobuoys for initial search: Aircraft currently are allowed to pre-emptively (no initial contact) saturate a search area with sonobuoys as part of their search. This is problematic for two reasons: (a) It does not reflect the fact that sonobuoys are a rather scarce resource and are thus usually used only for localization of an existing initial contact, and (b) because of their tight spacing, they make it much more likely to detect a sub in the area being sowed with them. Therefore need to add an (optional?) setting that restricts aircraft from using buoys on general search.
Wouldn't this issue be mitigated by making sonobuoys (optionally, to not break existing scenarios) limited in numbers found in magazines? This would leave their use at players discretion.
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:40 am
by Dimitris
ORIGINAL: AKar
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
* Do not use sonobuoys for initial search: Aircraft currently are allowed to pre-emptively (no initial contact) saturate a search area with sonobuoys as part of their search. This is problematic for two reasons: (a) It does not reflect the fact that sonobuoys are a rather scarce resource and are thus usually used only for localization of an existing initial contact, and (b) because of their tight spacing, they make it much more likely to detect a sub in the area being sowed with them. Therefore need to add an (optional?) setting that restricts aircraft from using buoys on general search.
Wouldn't this issue be mitigated by making sonobuoys (optionally, to not break existing scenarios) limited in numbers found in magazines? This would leave their use at players discretion.
Without doing any changes in the AI rationale, this would mean that the computer opponent would very quickly diminish his stocks.
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:10 am
by KungPao
ORIGINAL: thewood1
"make it 75% chance it will dispear"
Why 75%? Is there source on that? Are decoys that effective? Does it change based on timeline?
Good question sir. I don't know. This is a number randomly generated from my brain after one bottle of sake.
I am presenting an idea here. Dev team can decide if they want reject or take my idea. If they take my idea, they can put any number there.
RE: Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:10 am
by KungPao
ORIGINAL: Dimitris
ORIGINAL: KungPao
If this feature is too hard to implement, please consider add some calculated penalty for current Torp re-attack mode. For example, in case a torp is spoofed by decoy, make it 75% chance it will dispear.
I _think_ we already have a certain "torpedo lured by countermeasures and point-failing" probability, but I'll check.
Hi Dimitris
I looked into this and post a thread before
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =�
the failure check happens after Torp successfully pass the decoy check but failed at hit check. it simulates the torp failed to re-attack.
Re: [Logged] Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Sun May 22, 2022 1:15 pm
by Nikel
For those of you that can understand this topic, not my case
One of the sources cited by Ping Jockey is available in pdf at Google books.
Robert J. Urick.
Sound Propagation in the Sea. 1979
https://www.google.com/books/edition/So ... =es&gbpv=0
Also
Robert J. Urick.
Ambient noise in the sea. 1984
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Am ... UDegQIDRAG
Also of probable interest:
Introduction to sonar by Roy Edgar Hansen
https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat ... ressed.pdf
Re: [Logged] Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Sun May 22, 2022 8:14 pm
by Dimitris
Thanks! Every useful bit of research helps.
Re: [Logged] Recommended Changes to the Sonar Model
Posted: Mon May 23, 2022 8:51 pm
by ClaudeJ
Would "History Of Russian Underwater Acoustics" help in any way?